Talk to me about the Shiancoe "TD" last night (1 Viewer)

[fridayfrenzy]

Refs got it right IMO.

The tip of the ball hit the ground and definately aided in Shiancoe catching the ball by pushing it into his body.

Watch the replay and how the ball goes from being held by the tip of the ball, to being trapped against his tummy all because the ball hits the ground. That is evidence how the ground did affect the catch.

 

[Flash]

Refs got it right IMO.The tip of the ball hit the ground and definately aided in Shiancoe catching the ball by pushing it into his body.

Last night I didn't think so, but after seeing slow-mo replays today I believe they made the correct call.That said, I think they need to let the guys play and only overturn OBVIOUS mistakes.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

The catch was a completed catch because Shiancoe had the ball, controlled the ball, and the ball never loosened throughout his "football" motion. The ball did hit the ground however the ball was not aided in him completing the catch due to the ground. The catch should have been a touchdown.

But didn't the ball change positions, in other words, "moved" when the nose hit the ground?

No, the ball did not move. Think of the ground as another player. If the ball hits another player on the back while in possession of the receiver, the catch is still a catch even though it could be argued that the other player aided in the WR catching the ball. In theory the ground helped him catch the ball but what the ground did not do is knock the ball loose and then the receiver "re caught" it. The ball never lost possession even if/when aided by an outside force. The ball was in the grasp of the receiver neither enabling or aided, essentially, in allowing the receiver to make the catch.

You realize that the ground isn't, in fact, treated the same as another player for any other purposes, right?

 

[sho nuff]

The catch was a completed catch because Shiancoe had the ball, controlled the ball, and the ball never loosened throughout his "football" motion. The ball did hit the ground however the ball was not aided in him completing the catch due to the ground. The catch should have been a touchdown.

But didn't the ball change positions, in other words, "moved" when the nose hit the ground?

No, the ball did not move. Think of the ground as another player. If the ball hits another player on the back while in possession of the receiver, the catch is still a catch even though it could be argued that the other player aided in the WR catching the ball. In theory the ground helped him catch the ball but what the ground did not do is knock the ball loose and then the receiver "re caught" it. The ball never lost possession even if/when aided by an outside force. The ball was in the grasp of the receiver neither enabling or aided, essentially, in allowing the receiver to make the catch.

The ball does move a bit...not sure how anyone can deny that. And your comparison to a players back is laughable. A ball is not dead when it hits a player.

 

[tangfoot]

If 99 folks out of 100 think it's a catch, it's a catch.

In fairness, 99 folks out of 100 are idiots.

 

[Sudsy]

Watching the game last night with Viking fans and I'll agree with the poster above that the game was officiated badly for both ends.That said, the way I saw the play and interpreted it was that as the ball was getting caught the tip of that ball hit the ground and his arms were on both sides of the ball. As soon as the tip of that ball hit the ground since his forearms weren't under the ball it's a non-catch but then again I've seen goofier things happen this year.The real issue here is that Favre's throw was so far off the mark that it should have never gotten to that point! Good play on Shank's part, bad throw on Favre's part. The Vikes have some serious issues this year....the nonexistent pass rush being one of them

The Viking pass rush was more or less a myth last year absent their punk slapping of the Packers Third, Fourth, and even Fifth Tackles last year. It wasnt so much that the Vikings were so good as that they were decent, but the Packers were in masssive dissarray. Not really surprising to see them return to earth in their numbers this year. I also attribute that reduction to the continuing reduction in the effectiveness of the Williams Wall now that they are off the roids. It's like the reduction im merriman's effectiveness once he was outed. With the William's not getting the push they once did their lighter ends are not finding the Q.B.'s unable to step forward in the pocket. Q.B.'s are not sitting targets for them anymore.

 

[Sidewinder16]

Refs got it right IMO.The tip of the ball hit the ground and definately aided in Shiancoe catching the ball by pushing it into his body.Watch the replay and how the ball goes from being held by the tip of the ball, to being trapped against his tummy all because the ball hits the ground. That is evidence how the ground did affect the catch.

Not a catch.

 

[Mario Kart]

The catch was a completed catch because Shiancoe had the ball, controlled the ball, and the ball never loosened throughout his "football" motion. The ball did hit the ground however the ball was not aided in him completing the catch due to the ground. The catch should have been a touchdown.

But didn't the ball change positions, in other words, "moved" when the nose hit the ground?

No, the ball did not move. Think of the ground as another player. If the ball hits another player on the back while in possession of the receiver, the catch is still a catch even though it could be argued that the other player aided in the WR catching the ball. In theory the ground helped him catch the ball but what the ground did not do is knock the ball loose and then the receiver "re caught" it. The ball never lost possession even if/when aided by an outside force. The ball was in the grasp of the receiver neither enabling or aided, essentially, in allowing the receiver to make the catch.

You realize that the ground isn't, in fact, treated the same as another player for any other purposes, right?

The ball does move a bit...not sure how anyone can deny that. And your comparison to a players back is laughable. A ball is not dead when it hits a player.

Literally speaking the ball does move. So does the receiver, ground, grass, body, air and so on as it is called the laws of motion. Figuratively, the ball does not move. If the ball hits the ground while in possession, and jars loose and changes its position in relation to the receiver, the ball is incomplete. If the ball hits the ground, while in possession, and remains in the possession of the receiver not being jarred loose at all, the reception is complete.This is not difficult to understand. This is the main reason this was looked at previously due to Bert Emanuel (I believe). If the NFL wanted to have the rule state, like someone above said, "if at any time the ball touches the ground, the ball is incomplete" than that is a steadfast rule. As it stands now though, the ball can hit the ground and if it does not aid in the reception, than it is a catch.Last night the ball hit the ground but did not aid in the final catch of the ball. The play was ruled correctly on the field.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

NFL officiating is ruining the game. First it's a 'process' to complete that reverses TDs like Calvin Johnson's. Now it is what part of the hands are on the ball even though it is maintained throughout? NFL, you're ruining your game by overcomplicating. If 99 folks out of 100 think it's a catch, it's a catch. Simple as that. The ball did not move and he retained control, which is the rule. More importantly, I thought there was supposed to be 'irrefutable evidence' to overturn a call on the field? How could that standard have possibly been met when 99 of 100 still think it was a TD after viewing replay? Don't allow officials to overcomplicate to the point of deciding games. Really a shame the point officiating has gotten to on what is and is not a catch.

Since when have 99 out of 100 thought it was a catch?

 

[sho nuff]

Literally speaking the ball does move. So does the receiver, ground, grass, body, air and so on as it is called the laws of motion. Figuratively, the ball does not move. If the ball hits the ground while in possession, and jars loose and changes its position in relation to the receiver, the ball is incomplete. If the ball hits the ground, while in possession, and remains in the possession of the receiver not being jarred loose at all, the reception is complete.This is not difficult to understand. This is the main reason this was looked at previously due to Bert Emanuel (I believe). If the NFL wanted to have the rule state, like someone above said, "if at any time the ball touches the ground, the ball is incomplete" than that is a steadfast rule. As it stands now though, the ball can hit the ground and if it does not aid in the reception, than it is a catch.Last night the ball hit the ground but did not aid in the final catch of the ball. The play was ruled correctly on the field.

So, your point was that the ball did not move in his hands at all?

 

[da_budman]

Just watched it re-watched it and re-watched it again doing as much stopping the video as I could and i think the refs "probably" got it right on the overturn. I say probably because I don't have access to the super slow mo the nfl has access to.

What I saw: First of all he had less than half the ball. It was precarious enough as it was but I think his right hand came off of the ball, It went back on the ball before he hit the ground but still in a precarious position.

When he hit the ground the ball seemed to go further up his arms and into his chest and when we rolled over it was securely in his hands. So it went from barely in his possesion to further down into his chest and up his arms when he hit to securely in his right hand when he rolled over. Again stop action video is not as good as super slow mo but from what I could gather the ball moved. I stick with the guys who had the better look on this one. p.s. I am a Minny fan, at least to some extent anyway.

 

[Mario Kart]

Literally speaking the ball does move. So does the receiver, ground, grass, body, air and so on as it is called the laws of motion. Figuratively, the ball does not move. If the ball hits the ground while in possession, and jars loose and changes its position in relation to the receiver, the ball is incomplete. If the ball hits the ground, while in possession, and remains in the possession of the receiver not being jarred loose at all, the reception is complete.This is not difficult to understand. This is the main reason this was looked at previously due to Bert Emanuel (I believe). If the NFL wanted to have the rule state, like someone above said, "if at any time the ball touches the ground, the ball is incomplete" than that is a steadfast rule. As it stands now though, the ball can hit the ground and if it does not aid in the reception, than it is a catch.Last night the ball hit the ground but did not aid in the final catch of the ball. The play was ruled correctly on the field.

So, your point was that the ball did not move in his hands at all?

That is not the determination of catch/no catch given the Shinacoe call.If a player is aided by the ground in order to catch the ball, i.e. the ball was in possession than not in possession after hitting the ground than back in possession. That is not a catch. Last night the ball was in possession, remained in possession after hitting the ground, and continued to be in possession after that point. Shinacoe never lost possession nor did the ground assist in Shinacoe losing and/or regaining possession.This is not difficult so quit making it. The call on the field was correct.

 

[da_budman]

The catch was a completed catch because Shiancoe had the ball, controlled the ball, and the ball never loosened throughout his "football" motion. The ball did hit the ground however the ball was not aided in him completing the catch due to the ground. The catch should have been a touchdown.

But didn't the ball change positions, in other words, "moved" when the nose hit the ground?

No, the ball did not move. Think of the ground as another player. If the ball hits another player on the back while in possession of the receiver, the catch is still a catch even though it could be argued that the other player aided in the WR catching the ball. In theory the ground helped him catch the ball but what the ground did not do is knock the ball loose and then the receiver "re caught" it. The ball never lost possession even if/when aided by an outside force. The ball was in the grasp of the receiver neither enabling or aided, essentially, in allowing the receiver to make the catch.

Not a good argument at all. If a player is aided in the catch by another player he is still not down. Once the player in the second scenario hits the ground then posession must be determined. A receiver could theoretically bobble the ball off a defender any number of times but as long as he has posession by the time he hits the ground it is a catch.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

The catch was a completed catch because Shiancoe had the ball, controlled the ball, and the ball never loosened throughout his "football" motion. The ball did hit the ground however the ball was not aided in him completing the catch due to the ground. The catch should have been a touchdown.

But didn't the ball change positions, in other words, "moved" when the nose hit the ground?

No, the ball did not move. Think of the ground as another player. If the ball hits another player on the back while in possession of the receiver, the catch is still a catch even though it could be argued that the other player aided in the WR catching the ball. In theory the ground helped him catch the ball but what the ground did not do is knock the ball loose and then the receiver "re caught" it. The ball never lost possession even if/when aided by an outside force. The ball was in the grasp of the receiver neither enabling or aided, essentially, in allowing the receiver to make the catch.

You realize that the ground isn't, in fact, treated the same as another player for any other purposes, right?

Literally speaking the ball does move. So does the receiver, ground, grass, body, air and so on as it is called the laws of motion. Figuratively, the ball does not move. If the ball hits the ground while in possession, and jars loose and changes its position in relation to the receiver, the ball is incomplete. If the ball hits the ground, while in possession, and remains in the possession of the receiver not being jarred loose at all, the reception is complete.This is not difficult to understand. This is the main reason this was looked at previously due to Bert Emanuel (I believe). If the NFL wanted to have the rule state, like someone above said, "if at any time the ball touches the ground, the ball is incomplete" than that is a steadfast rule. As it stands now though, the ball can hit the ground and if it does not aid in the reception, than it is a catch.Last night the ball hit the ground but did not aid in the final catch of the ball. The play was ruled correctly on the field.

You never addressed my comment. The ground is not treated the same as another player.I didn't make any broader suggestion about the Shiancoe play, rather I was responding to your comment which was, at best, misleading.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

The catch was a completed catch because Shiancoe had the ball, controlled the ball, and the ball never loosened throughout his "football" motion. The ball did hit the ground however the ball was not aided in him completing the catch due to the ground. The catch should have been a touchdown.

But didn't the ball change positions, in other words, "moved" when the nose hit the ground?

No, the ball did not move. Think of the ground as another player. If the ball hits another player on the back while in possession of the receiver, the catch is still a catch even though it could be argued that the other player aided in the WR catching the ball. In theory the ground helped him catch the ball but what the ground did not do is knock the ball loose and then the receiver "re caught" it. The ball never lost possession even if/when aided by an outside force. The ball was in the grasp of the receiver neither enabling or aided, essentially, in allowing the receiver to make the catch.

Not a good argument at all. If a player is aided in the catch by another player he is still not down. Once the player in the second scenario hits the ground then posession must be determined. A receiver could theoretically bobble the ball off a defender any number of times but as long as he has posession by the time he hits the ground it is a catch.

Exactly. Keep in mind, I'm still not suggesting anything about the play in question, just responding to poor logic.

 

[sho nuff]

Literally speaking the ball does move. So does the receiver, ground, grass, body, air and so on as it is called the laws of motion. Figuratively, the ball does not move. If the ball hits the ground while in possession, and jars loose and changes its position in relation to the receiver, the ball is incomplete. If the ball hits the ground, while in possession, and remains in the possession of the receiver not being jarred loose at all, the reception is complete.This is not difficult to understand. This is the main reason this was looked at previously due to Bert Emanuel (I believe). If the NFL wanted to have the rule state, like someone above said, "if at any time the ball touches the ground, the ball is incomplete" than that is a steadfast rule. As it stands now though, the ball can hit the ground and if it does not aid in the reception, than it is a catch.Last night the ball hit the ground but did not aid in the final catch of the ball. The play was ruled correctly on the field.

So, your point was that the ball did not move in his hands at all?

That is not the determination of catch/no catch given the Shinacoe call.If a player is aided by the ground in order to catch the ball, i.e. the ball was in possession than not in possession after hitting the ground than back in possession. That is not a catch. Last night the ball was in possession, remained in possession after hitting the ground, and continued to be in possession after that point. Shinacoe never lost possession nor did the ground assist in Shinacoe losing and/or regaining possession.This is not difficult so quit making it. The call on the field was correct.

You are right...its not difficult.If the ball moves at all in his possession when hitting the ground, they will call it incomplete.You spin rather than answering a yes or no question.

 

[Sidewinder16]

Last night the ball was in possession, remained in possession after hitting the ground, and continued to be in possession after that point. Shinacoe never lost possession nor did the ground assist in Shinacoe losing and/or regaining possession.

From the official rules linked earlier:

"Article 7 A player is in possession when he is in firm grip and control of the ball inbounds

(See 3-2-3).

To gain possession of a loose ball (3-2-3) that has been caught, intercepted, or recovered,

a player must have complete control of the ball and have both feet completely on the

ground inbounds or any other part of his body, other than his hands, on the ground inbounds.

If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any other

part of his body to the ground or if there is any doubt that the acts were simultaneous,

there is no possession. This rule applies in the field of play and in the end zone.

The terms catch, intercept, recover, advance, and fumble denote player possession (as

distinguished from touching or muffing)."

A catch is made when a player inbounds secures possession of a pass, kick, or fumble in

flight (See 8-1-3).

Note 1: It is a catch if in the process of attempting to catch the ball, a player secures control

of the ball prior to the ball touching the ground and that control is maintained after the

ball has touched the ground.

Shiancoe had the back half of the ball in between his wrists, and while he was horizontal in midair, when the ball hit the ground. I don't know why anyone would believe that constitutes "control of the ball". If you think Shiancoe had a "firm grip and control of the ball" before it hit the ground and was pushed back through his hands in to his chest, I don't know what to tell you.

 

[Tau837]

Last night the ball was in possession, remained in possession after hitting the ground, and continued to be in possession after that point. Shinacoe never lost possession nor did the ground assist in Shinacoe losing and/or regaining possession.

From the official rules linked earlier:

"Article 7 A player is in possession when he is in firm grip and control of the ball inbounds

(See 3-2-3).

To gain possession of a loose ball (3-2-3) that has been caught, intercepted, or recovered,

a player must have complete control of the ball and have both feet completely on the

ground inbounds or any other part of his body, other than his hands, on the ground inbounds.

If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any other

part of his body to the ground or if there is any doubt that the acts were simultaneous,

there is no possession. This rule applies in the field of play and in the end zone.

The terms catch, intercept, recover, advance, and fumble denote player possession (as

distinguished from touching or muffing)."

A catch is made when a player inbounds secures possession of a pass, kick, or fumble in

flight (See 8-1-3).

Note 1: It is a catch if in the process of attempting to catch the ball, a player secures control

of the ball prior to the ball touching the ground and that control is maintained after the

ball has touched the ground.

Shiancoe had the back half of the ball in between his wrists, and while he was horizontal in midair, when the ball hit the ground. I don't know why anyone would believe that constitutes "control of the ball". If you think Shiancoe had a "firm grip and control of the ball" before it hit the ground and was pushed back through his hands in to his chest, I don't know what to tell you.

You seem to have left out a key element from the 2010 rules linked earlier in the thread (or possibly you are using an outdated set of rules that do not include this provision):

I checked the rule book quoted above for 2010 (my rule book printed in 2007 does not include this)

Article 3 Completed Pass.

Item 4: Ball touches ground. If the ball touches the ground after the player secures control of it, it is a catch provided that the player continues to maintain control.

So touching the ground isn't the issue directly. The potential issues are whether or not he secured control of the ball before it touched the ground and whether or not he continued to maintain control after it touched the ground. IMO the answer to both questions is yes. Ergo, it should have been a catch, as it was originally ruled on the field.

 

[sho nuff]

So touching the ground isn't the issue directly. The potential issues are whether or not he secured control of the ball before it touched the ground and whether or not he continued to maintain control after it touched the ground. IMO the answer to both questions is yes. Ergo, it should have been a catch, as it was originally ruled on the field.

Depends...do you consider it secured if the ball does move into his body like that after it hits the ground?

 

[dennis.moore]

But isn't one of the big things is that to see if the ball hit the ground is to see if the player had his hands under the ball? He didn't have his hands under the ball when he hit the ground.

 

[Sidewinder16]

You seem to have left out a key element from the 2010 rules linked earlier in the thread (or possibly you are using an outdated set of rules that do not include this provision):

I checked the rule book quoted above for 2010 (my rule book printed in 2007 does not include this)

Article 3 Completed Pass.

Item 4: Ball touches ground. If the ball touches the ground after the player secures control of it, it is a catch provided that the player continues to maintain control.

So touching the ground isn't the issue directly. The potential issues are whether or not he secured control of the ball before it touched the ground and whether or not he continued to maintain control after it touched the ground. IMO the answer to both questions is yes. Ergo, it should have been a catch, as it was originally ruled on the field.

Those quotes are from the 2010 rules linked earlier in the thread. And I didn't leave out any issues you mentioned. My post was completely about what defines "possession" and a "catch". To make a "catch" you have to gain possession of a pass. To gain possession, you have to have secure control of the ball prior to the ball touching the ground. IMO, the answer is clearly "no, Shiancoe did not have secure control prior to the ball touching the ground".

Whether you are correct or I am correct is fairly moot anyway as there is obviously a "question whether a forward pass is complete". In that regard, the 2010 rules clearly state:

Article 4 Incomplete Pass. Any forward pass (legal or illegal) is incomplete and the

ball is dead immediately if the pass strikes the ground or goes out of bounds. An incomplete

pass is a loss of down, and the ball returns to the previous spot.

Note: If there is any question whether a forward pass is complete, intercepted, or incomplete,

it is to be ruled incomplete.

 

[az_prof]

Refs got it right IMO.The tip of the ball hit the ground and definately aided in Shiancoe catching the ball by pushing it into his body.Watch the replay and how the ball goes from being held by the tip of the ball, to being trapped against his tummy all because the ball hits the ground. That is evidence how the ground did affect the catch.

Not even close.

 

[Dragon1952]

Half the ball was hanging out. It looked like he had it trapped between a hand and the other wrist. No, it didn't appear that it moved when it hit the ground but I think it certainly aided in the catch. Regardless of the rule I don't think it should ever be a catch. And I had a few bucks on Minnesota, so not biased at all.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

That was TD.

No ifs, ands, or buts.

The NFL league office has lost a grasp on what the sport of "football" actually is.

 

[az_prof]

Half the ball was hanging out. It looked like he had it trapped between a hand and the other wrist. No, it didn't appear that it moved when it hit the ground but I think it certainly aided in the catch. Regardless of the rule I don't think it should ever be a catch. And I had a few bucks on Minnesota, so not biased at all.

How did it "aid in the catch"? Was the ball moving in his arms and then the ground secured it? No. There was no movement. Ball was secure. No juggling. No bumbling. No nothing. Ball secure. I don't know if we are looking at the same play.

 

[daveR]

After seeing the replay in the link... No catch. Ball was between his wrists. The point of the ball hit ground causing it to move and change positions. IMO, after replay, not even close.

 

[sho nuff]

Half the ball was hanging out. It looked like he had it trapped between a hand and the other wrist. No, it didn't appear that it moved when it hit the ground but I think it certainly aided in the catch. Regardless of the rule I don't think it should ever be a catch. And I had a few bucks on Minnesota, so not biased at all.

How did it "aid in the catch"? Was the ball moving in his arms and then the ground secured it? No. There was no movement. Ball was secure. No juggling. No bumbling. No nothing. Ball secure. I don't know if we are looking at the same play.

When he hits the ground, the ball moves up deeper into his body...that is what they call aiding the catch.

 

[az_prof]

Half the ball was hanging out. It looked like he had it trapped between a hand and the other wrist. No, it didn't appear that it moved when it hit the ground but I think it certainly aided in the catch. Regardless of the rule I don't think it should ever be a catch. And I had a few bucks on Minnesota, so not biased at all.

How did it "aid in the catch"? Was the ball moving in his arms and then the ground secured it? No. There was no movement. Ball was secure. No juggling. No bumbling. No nothing. Ball secure. I don't know if we are looking at the same play.

When he hits the ground, the ball moves up deeper into his body...that is what they call aiding the catch.

I don't see it. And the catch was made before he hit the ground. The ball wasn't moving. If the ball was moving and then he hits and uses the ground to cushion it against his body, that would be aiding. That's the intent of the rule.Horrible ruling, especially when you consider that it overturned the ruling on the field.

 

[hauser42]

It was a no catch. The player did not have control of the ball when he came down. As he rolls over you can see that he is trying to control the ball. I look at as if he was stretched out and the ball hits the ground and pops out, ruled no catch.

If he would have rolled over with the ball even close to way he was holding it when he hit the ground I would say catch, but the ball was way below his beltline when he rolled over.

Give McCarthy credit he rushed the team out there to kick extra point, on the Quarles no catch.

 

[sho nuff]

Half the ball was hanging out. It looked like he had it trapped between a hand and the other wrist. No, it didn't appear that it moved when it hit the ground but I think it certainly aided in the catch. Regardless of the rule I don't think it should ever be a catch. And I had a few bucks on Minnesota, so not biased at all.

How did it "aid in the catch"? Was the ball moving in his arms and then the ground secured it? No. There was no movement. Ball was secure. No juggling. No bumbling. No nothing. Ball secure. I don't know if we are looking at the same play.

When he hits the ground, the ball moves up deeper into his body...that is what they call aiding the catch.

I don't see it. And the catch was made before he hit the ground. The ball wasn't moving. If the ball was moving and then he hits and uses the ground to cushion it against his body, that would be aiding. That's the intent of the rule.Horrible ruling, especially when you consider that it overturned the ruling on the field.

If you don't see that the balls moves from being half out of his hands (in control at the time yes) to totally into his body once it touches the ground...then you are completely blind.Glad also you think you know the intent of the rule.

 

[daveR]

There was another play, late in the game, where the wr got one foot down in the back of the endzone, but not two. Favre was jumping around with a bad wheel celebrating.

My question... Seeing it real-time, it looked like interference prior to the non-catch. Is it legal to call a penalty from replay? I seem to recall somewhere that it is.

 

[sho nuff]

There was another play, late in the game, where the wr got one foot down in the back of the endzone, but not two. Favre was jumping around with a bad wheel celebrating.My question... Seeing it real-time, it looked like interference prior to the non-catch. Is it legal to call a penalty from replay? I seem to recall somewhere that it is.

No...except for something like 12 men on the field.And I think they can take a penalty away for PI if they can show the ball was tipped at the line.

 

[az_prof]

There was another play, late in the game, where the wr got one foot down in the back of the endzone, but not two. Favre was jumping around with a bad wheel celebrating.My question... Seeing it real-time, it looked like interference prior to the non-catch. Is it legal to call a penalty from replay? I seem to recall somewhere that it is.

There was interference on that play. Not bad, but it was there. It was borderline--the kind of interference that gets called sometimes and not other times. Meh. That play doesn't bother me because Harvin was out; but I will never forget the Shianco TD. We may have lost anyway and I don't begrudge Packer's their win; but I am just really losing patience with refereeing in the NFL and I have no trust in their integrity at all. I would never bet money on the NFL that's for sure.

 

[sho nuff]

I do agree with you that reffing in this league stinks.

The Harvin one...watch the ref...he never even looks at Harvin's feet at all.

 

[az_prof]

I do agree with you that reffing in this league stinks.The Harvin one...watch the ref...he never even looks at Harvin's feet at all.

Yeah, and he is standing right there.

 

[Hybrid]

It seams clear to me that there was not enough evidence to overturn the call on the field.

Now if you ask me whether it was a catch or not, I'd say it was. It seams like he had control of the ball, and maintained control of the ball after it hit the ground. After watching it in slow motion from the best angle shown, it's not possible to see whether it is bobbled when it is underneath his stomach.

And I'm a Packers fan.

 

[scott72]

The NFL told Chilly today that the Shiancoe TD should of been a TD, and if he would have challenged the Quarless TD if would have been overturned..DOH!

 

[az_prof]

The NFL told Chilly today that the Shiancoe TD should of been a TD, and if he would have challenged the Quarless TD if would have been overturned..DOH!

Are you jerking our chain? Would love to see the link if true.

 

[sho nuff]

The NFL told Chilly today that the Shiancoe TD should of been a TD, and if he would have challenged the Quarless TD if would have been overturned..DOH!

Interesting...seems by so many versions of the rule, it could be ruled incomplete by any rule I have ever seen.The ball does move.I can see how different refs would see it different.I said earlier before watching it several times that 8/10 would call it a catch...I would change that more towards 50/50 at best.The NFL then needs to train their refs better and figure out how to explain their own rules.I think everyone knows the Quarless one would have been reversed when he bobbled it.

 

[scott72]

The NFL told Chilly today that the Shiancoe TD should of been a TD, and if he would have challenged the Quarless TD if would have been overturned..DOH!

Are you jerking our chain? Would love to see the link if true.

Dead serious. I have the Vikings beat reporter on Twitter and he posted that from Chilly's presser this afternoon. I'm getting ready for work, but will try to find something here quick.

 

[az_prof]

The NFL told Chilly today that the Shiancoe TD should of been a TD, and if he would have challenged the Quarless TD if would have been overturned..DOH!

Interesting...seems by so many versions of the rule, it could be ruled incomplete by any rule I have ever seen.The ball does move.I can see how different refs would see it different.I said earlier before watching it several times that 8/10 would call it a catch...I would change that more towards 50/50 at best.The NFL then needs to train their refs better and figure out how to explain their own rules.I think everyone knows the Quarless one would have been reversed when he bobbled it.

Sho: if 8 out of 10 would call it a catch, and it was ruled a catch on field, then shouldn't it have stood? Wouldn't irrefutable evidence be close to 10/10 thinking the call was wrong? As I have said, what most troubles me isn't the result itself; it is the fact that the call most people would make was in fact made on the field, and then overturned on review.

 

[sho nuff]

The NFL told Chilly today that the Shiancoe TD should of been a TD, and if he would have challenged the Quarless TD if would have been overturned..DOH!

Are you jerking our chain? Would love to see the link if true.

Dead serious. I have the Vikings beat reporter on Twitter and he posted that from Chilly's presser this afternoon. I'm getting ready for work, but will try to find something here quick.

So it comes from Chilly.Id wait til I heard from the NFL rather than him right now.

 

[scott72]

twitter.com/JuddZulgad

Childress also told if he had challenged Packers TD it would have been overturned.

Childress told by NFL today that Shiancoe TD should have stood and not been overturned.

 

[basher]

Yeah chilly said today that the NFL told him it was the wrong call ... at least that is what KFAN minneapolis is reporting.

 

[sho nuff]

The NFL told Chilly today that the Shiancoe TD should of been a TD, and if he would have challenged the Quarless TD if would have been overturned..DOH!

Interesting...seems by so many versions of the rule, it could be ruled incomplete by any rule I have ever seen.The ball does move.I can see how different refs would see it different.I said earlier before watching it several times that 8/10 would call it a catch...I would change that more towards 50/50 at best.The NFL then needs to train their refs better and figure out how to explain their own rules.I think everyone knows the Quarless one would have been reversed when he bobbled it.

Sho: if 8 out of 10 would call it a catch, and it was ruled a catch on field, then shouldn't it have stood? Wouldn't irrefutable evidence be close to 10/10 thinking the call was wrong? As I have said, what most troubles me isn't the result itself; it is the fact that the call most people would make was in fact made on the field, and then overturned on review.

My 8/10 comment was earlier today before I had watched several replays of it slowed down a bit to see the ball does move.I think when a ref sees the ball move at all, he calls it incomplete. It does move some.Now, if the NFL does not think that is the rule, they need to train their refs and communicate such things to people.

 

[Bruce Leroy]

Who cares. The NFL always says that. Nothing ever changes

 

[az_prof]

The NFL told Chilly today that the Shiancoe TD should of been a TD, and if he would have challenged the Quarless TD if would have been overturned..DOH!

Interesting...seems by so many versions of the rule, it could be ruled incomplete by any rule I have ever seen.The ball does move.I can see how different refs would see it different.I said earlier before watching it several times that 8/10 would call it a catch...I would change that more towards 50/50 at best.The NFL then needs to train their refs better and figure out how to explain their own rules.I think everyone knows the Quarless one would have been reversed when he bobbled it.

Sho: if 8 out of 10 would call it a catch, and it was ruled a catch on field, then shouldn't it have stood? Wouldn't irrefutable evidence be close to 10/10 thinking the call was wrong? As I have said, what most troubles me isn't the result itself; it is the fact that the call most people would make was in fact made on the field, and then overturned on review.

My 8/10 comment was earlier today before I had watched several replays of it slowed down a bit to see the ball does move.I think when a ref sees the ball move at all, he calls it incomplete. It does move some.Now, if the NFL does not think that is the rule, they need to train their refs and communicate such things to people.

I think we can agree on the need for more training and as I said with the Calvin TD, simpler, clearer rules. It shouldn't take a lawyer to figure out if there is a TD, a fumble, or interference. And right now, it pretty much does. The rules need to be simplified and the referees need to be professionals. Better yet, in this day and age of accountability why don't we let fans "grade" the referees. And then fire the worst at the end of the year.

 

[Sudsy]

The NFL told Chilly today that the Shiancoe TD should of been a TD, and if he would have challenged the Quarless TD if would have been overturned..DOH!

Are you jerking our chain? Would love to see the link if true.

I think they just tell him stuff like that to make him bat #### crazy right before they fine him for criticizing the refs. It's all part of some sick twisted game Goodell plays with his Bilderberger friends and with Kim Jong Il. It's through the lookingglass stuff really. It's a Chilly death pool thing where they can torment him, but not physically intercede. These are the same folks who took out Chilly Willy. Speaking of chilly willy, Favre looked a little cold in those photos. Are you starting to see how this all connects?

 

[Sidewinder16]

As I have said, what most troubles me isn't the result itself; it is the fact that the call most people would make was in fact made on the field, and then overturned on review.

What most people think shouldn't factor in to this at all. Whether Shiancoe had a catch or not should be dependent solely on the rules of the NFL.

 

[az_prof]

As I have said, what most troubles me isn't the result itself; it is the fact that the call most people would make was in fact made on the field, and then overturned on review.

What most people think shouldn't factor in to this at all. Whether Shiancoe had a catch or not should be dependent solely on the rules of the NFL.

So, you are saying that the average fan shouldn't be able to tell if a TD is scored or not? It should be that obtuse?As it turns out, the NFL said it should have been a TD. And it was ruled that on the field. Yet, with the benefit of replay, a referee overturned the ruling on the field. And he was wrong. Doesn't that tell you something is wrong with the "rule of the NFL"?????